Government Shutdown on the clock thread

[Texsox]

You missed the underlying point.

 

Under what law does the government have the right to tell a private organization that it can't raise private funds to perform a fully legal medical procedure?

 

 

Same law that eliminated public money and accomodations to the Boy Scouts. A private organization can raise private funds for legal purposes, in some cases then they just can't also have public funds.

[StrangeSox]

Same law that eliminated public money and accomodations to the Boy Scouts.

 

the first amendment?

[Texsox]

the first amendment?

 

I'm not certain this is a free speech case. I believe this is more there isn't a law, just like their insn't a law allowing someone to be wearing an ugly tie in public. Basically the government has done this in many ways. It is legal for a private club to set their own membership standards, but the government can pull certain tax benefits and not host events at your club, etc.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not certain this is a free speech case. I believe this is more there isn't a law, just like their insn't a law allowing someone to be wearing an ugly tie in public. Basically the government has done this in many ways. It is legal for a private club to set their own membership standards, but the government can pull certain tax benefits and not host events at your club, etc.

 

Government policy changes were brought about after the ACLU filed suit against the BSA on first amendment grounds. Perhaps if the BSA dropped its discriminatory policies it wouldn't be an issue, but then my gay-atheist brother being an Eagle Scout wouldn't be so ironic.

 

None of that has anything to do with Balta's question regarding PP, though.

[Balta1701]

Same law that eliminated public money and accomodations to the Boy Scouts. A private organization can raise private funds for legal purposes, in some cases then they just can't also have public funds.

Good, exactly where I wanted you to go...the government has every right to decide not to contribute to Planned Parenthood, just as the government has every right to decide not to contribute to the Boy Scouts. The government can also base its decisions for who to contribute to on the behavior or effectiveness of that organization.

 

If the government wants to stop contributing to Planned Parenthood based on what they're doing with private donations, this is entirely reasonable. The government can also tell PP that it will only contribute to PP under certain circumstances. What the government cannot do is tell PP what it can or can't do with privately raised funds as a matter of law.

 

This brings us to the real issue...why does government money flow to PP in the first place? The answer is...because it works. The Nixon administration was the one that started it, and the reason why he started it was that the government was spending a ton of money providing healthcare and child-bearing services to people who were left behind and uninsured. By increasing the funding for PP, the government made it so that more women were getting those services...cancer treatment rates improved, child development was improved, unwanted pregnancies were dropped. The government gave them money because that money was being well spent...it was saving the taxpayers money in other places.

 

If the government wanted to, it could instead of funding PP, set up its own version of PP that did not provide abortion services. However, first, doing that nationwide will cost a hell of a lot more money than just using PP's already existing network, the Feds wouldn't have the already-established PP name to work with, and it's very likely that funding for that organization would be subject to the whims of whoever took office...such that clinics would be opening and closing every few years, a total mess.

 

The government funds PP because it saves the taxpayers money, it makes people healthier, and it works. If the government wants to spend more money and have more premature births or dead mothers, it is the Republicans right to demand that, and it's equally my right to say "You do this and you kill women and babies, and you waste money to do it." because I'm fully accurate in saying so.

[Jenksismyhero]

Good, exactly where I wanted you to go...the government has every right to decide not to contribute to Planned Parenthood, just as the government has every right to decide not to contribute to the Boy Scouts. The government can also base its decisions for who to contribute to on the behavior or effectiveness of that organization.

 

If the government wants to stop contributing to Planned Parenthood based on what they're doing with private donations, this is entirely reasonable. The government can also tell PP that it will only contribute to PP under certain circumstances. What the government cannot do is tell PP what it can or can't do with privately raised funds as a matter of law.

 

This brings us to the real issue...why does government money flow to PP in the first place? The answer is...because it works. The Nixon administration was the one that started it, and the reason why he started it was that the government was spending a ton of money providing healthcare and child-bearing services to people who were left behind and uninsured. By increasing the funding for PP, the government made it so that more women were getting those services...cancer treatment rates improved, child development was improved, unwanted pregnancies were dropped. The government gave them money because that money was being well spent...it was saving the taxpayers money in other places.

 

If the government wanted to, it could instead of funding PP, set up its own version of PP that did not provide abortion services. However, first, doing that nationwide will cost a hell of a lot more money than just using PP's already existing network, the Feds wouldn't have the already-established PP name to work with, and it's very likely that funding for that organization would be subject to the whims of whoever took office...such that clinics would be opening and closing every few years, a total mess.

 

The government funds PP because it saves the taxpayers money, it makes people healthier, and it works. If the government wants to spend more money and have more premature births or dead mothers, it is the Republicans right to demand that, and it's equally my right to say "You do this and you kill women and babies, and you waste money to do it." because I'm fully accurate in saying so.

 

I always find it funny that we talk about PLANNED Parenthood and funding a program to erase "parenthood" mistakes (in most cases). I think you're right with a lot of what you say, but I wonder what the Nixon era politicians would say when told that PP now performs 330K abortions a year.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I always find it funny that we talk about PLANNED Parenthood and funding a program to erase "parenthood" mistakes (in most cases). I think you're right with a lot of what you say, but I wonder what the Nixon era politicians would say when told that PP now performs 330K abortions a year.

Broad statistical generalization not found in evidence.

 

[StrangeSox]

Broad statistical generalization not found in evidence.

 

"Republican argument" = "blatant lie"

 

[StrangeSox]

Anyway, there's nothing ironic about Planned Parenthood providing abortion services for unplanned pregnancies.

[Soxbadger]

id bet that Nixon would say "Damn hippies" and shake his fist violently.

 

I guess the problem people will always have with me in any PP debate, is that I dont think there is anything wrong with abortion. I think for most people they are a valuable life lesson, $1 for a condom or $500+ for an abortion procedure.

 

And even if I assume that my tax dollars are paying for abortions, Id rather pay a one time fixed cost of $500, then potentially have to pay for the rest of my life.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Broad statistical generalization not found in evidence.

 

I was actually referring to the fact that most abortions are "mistakes" instead of planned (i.e., in cases of health of the mother, rape, etc).

[Soxbadger]

Right because in general Planned Parenthood helps people who are planning to be parents.

 

They also help discuss the pros and cons of parenting with those who arent sure.

 

And in some cases where the people have no interest in children at all, they perform abortions.

 

Thats why its called Planned Parenthood, because they help you develop a plan.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

"Republican argument" = "blatant lie"

 

Yeah, not what I was saying. But good try.

[Jenksismyhero]

id bet that Nixon would say "Damn hippies" and shake his fist violently.

 

I guess the problem people will always have with me in any PP debate, is that I dont think there is anything wrong with abortion. I think for most people they are a valuable life lesson, $1 for a condom or $500+ for an abortion procedure.

 

And even if I assume that my tax dollars are paying for abortions, Id rather pay a one time fixed cost of $500, then potentially have to pay for the rest of my life.

 

I'm not anywhere near the far right on this issue. But I think abortions should be an absolute last resort. I can't do a simple cost evaluation on something like that. This view completely ignores the psychological affect it has on the mothers, even if it is in their best economic interest to have it done.

[Jenksismyhero]

Right because in general Planned Parenthood helps people who are planning to be parents.

 

They also help discuss the pros and cons of parenting with those who arent sure.

 

And in some cases where the people have no interest in children at all, they perform abortions.

 

Thats why its called Planned Parenthood, because they help you develop a plan.

 

Pretty sure abortion is the end of the plan. Not much to plan for at that point. Hence my point about it being ironic.

[Balta1701]

Pretty sure abortion is the end of the plan. Not much to plan for at that point. Hence my point about it being ironic.

Huh?

 

So, you think people plan to get pregnant so they can have abortions?

[Soxbadger]

This view completely ignores the psychological affect it has on the mothers,

 

No it presupposes that the mother is making an informed decision.

 

Im advocating that if the mother wants an abortion, she gets counseling about abortion vs adoption vs raising the child and then gets to make her decision.

 

Its up to the mother/father to determine the psychological affect.

 

I certainly know that if my girlfriend had an abortion when I was 21 it would have a lot less psychological impact than if she had a baby. Sure you think about what if some times, but a lot of those times you realize those what ifs were horrible results.

 

Everyone should be able to make up their own mind about whether they want to bring another life into this world, Im not going to second guess someone if they want to have every child, or if they want to abort every child.

 

Its your life, you have to look at yourself in the mirror.

[Soxbadger]

No, it appears he believes that having an abortion is some knee jerk decision that you can have done immediately after finding out your pregnant. Im not even sure that most people know you cant have an abortion too early in the pregnancy, that you actually have to wait a certain amount of time to get one...

Edited April 12, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

Huh?

 

So, you think people plan to get pregnant so they can have abortions?

 

What? How do you get that out of what I said? I'm saying that based on my understanding of the goal of PP when it was started (to counsel women/couples about pregnancy and to provide means to prevent pregnancy until they are ready) abortion doesn't really fit into that.

 

I'm not discounting that lots of advising goes on before deciding to get an abortion. And no doubt PP's goals probably include that now.

[StrangeSox]

What? How do you get that out of what I said? I'm saying that based on my understanding of the goal of PP when it was started (to counsel women/couples about pregnancy and to provide means to prevent pregnancy until they are ready) abortion doesn't really fit into that.

 

I'm not discounting that lots of advising goes on before deciding to get an abortion. And no doubt PP's goals probably include that now.

 

Aborting an unplanned pregnancy seems to be perfectly consistent with the idea of promoting planned parenthood.

[Jenksismyhero]

No it presupposes that the mother is making an informed decision.

 

Im advocating that if the mother wants an abortion, she gets counseling about abortion vs adoption vs raising the child and then gets to make her decision.

 

Its up to the mother/father to determine the psychological affect.

 

I certainly know that if my girlfriend had an abortion when I was 21 it would have a lot less psychological impact than if she had a baby. Sure you think about what if some times, but a lot of those times you realize those what ifs were horrible results.

 

Everyone should be able to make up their own mind about whether they want to bring another life into this world, Im not going to second guess someone if they want to have every child, or if they want to abort every child.

 

Its your life, you have to look at yourself in the mirror.

 

But whether the decision is an informed one or not doesn't relate to whether the government should be funding it in the first place.

[Balta1701]

But whether the decision is an informed one or not doesn't relate to whether the government should be funding it in the first place.

No, that's the simple question...which is better, saving money and lives or costing money and lives?

 

Because funding PP is the former, and ending funding for it is the latter.

[Soxbadger]

I think the govt should be funding it.

 

Id rather pay $500 today, than unknown in the future.

 

The problem isnt economical, the problem is moral. And unfortunately I cant put a price on morality. Some people are just adamantly against abortions and regardless of how economical or socially beneficial they are, refuse to allow them.

 

I cant work with those type of people, they might as well be on Mars while Im on Neptune.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, that's the simple question...which is better, saving money and lives or costing money and lives?

 

Because funding PP is the former, and ending funding for it is the latter.

 

Glad you've made the decision of "life" for everyone. I think an anti-abortion person would argue you have them backwards.

 

And I see both sides of the argument here. I just don't think it's as easy a decision as you are making it out to be. Couldn't I use the same economic argument on say, supporting the de-listing of the grey wolf? It's saving the country money. Why not let the government decide if the species is really endangered or not?

[Soxbadger]

Well thats the real problem here, what is life and when is it worth protecting.